B. You understand it rightly. But know that they will also say this: perhaps it is impossible and unfitting to think or say that the Word who was ineffably born from God the Father, beyond all understanding, should undergo a second birth from a woman. ‘It is enough for Him,’ they say, ‘to have been begotten once from the Father in a manner worthy of God.’
A. Then they are finding fault with the Son and saying that He did not choose rightly when He willingly underwent self-emptying for our sake. The august and great mystery of godliness is thereby brought to nothing and made empty, and they make the skillful dispensation of the Only-Begotten in the flesh useless for those on earth. But the word of truth does not allow their babbling to prevail. Rather, it will expose them as speaking with the greatest foolishness and as knowing nothing at all of the mystery of Christ. God the Father begot the Son from Himself in one generation. Yet He was pleased in Him to save the human race by the way of Incarnation, or becoming man, which necessarily had to take place through a birth—namely, birth from a woman—so that through the likeness to us assumed by the Word born from God, the law of sin might be condemned in the members of the flesh, and death might be abolished in the likeness of the death of the One who does not know death. For Scripture says, ‘If we have become united with the likeness of His death, we shall also be united with that of His resurrection.’ Therefore He who is and who exists was necessarily born according to the flesh, taking what is ours into Himself, so that the offspring of flesh—that is, we who are corruptible and perishing—might remain in Him, who now has what is ours as His own, so that we in turn might have what is His. ‘For though He was rich, He became poor for our sake, so that by His poverty we might become rich.’ But by saying that the Word from God did not Himself become flesh—that is, did not undergo birth according to the flesh from a woman—they abolish the dispensation. For if, while rich, He did not become poor by lovingly lowering Himself to our condition, then neither have we been enriched with what is His. We still remain in poverty, held fast by curse, death, and sin. For the Word’s becoming flesh brings the dissolution and overthrow of the things that befell human nature through curse and judgment. If, then, they dig up the root of our salvation and tear out the foundation of our hope, where can anything that follows from it still stand? For if the Word did not become flesh, as I have said, the power of death has not been overthrown, sin has in no way been abolished, and we are still liable to the transgression of the first man, Adam, with no return to a better state through Christ, the Savior of us all.
B. I understand what you mean.
A. And who should we understand the One to be who, like us, partook of blood and flesh, if not One who by nature is other than we are? No one would say that a human being needs to partake of humanity. For how could anyone be understood to receive as something different from himself that which he already is by nature? Does this reasoning not seem entirely sound?
B. Certainly.
A. Consider also, from another angle, how impious and absurd it is to try to take away from God the Word His birth according to the flesh from a woman. How could His body give life if it were not the body of Him who is Life? How does the blood of Jesus cleanse us from every sin if it is the blood of an ordinary man who is himself under sin? How did God the Father send His Son, ‘born of a woman, born under the Law’? How did He condemn sin in the flesh? It does not belong to an ordinary man, whose nature is tyrannized by sin together with ours, to condemn sin. But since the body became the body of Him who knows no transgression, it therefore very rightly cast off the tyranny of sin. It is rich with the properties of the Word who is united to it ineffably and in a manner beyond expression; it is holy and life-giving and filled with divine activity. And in Christ as our firstfruits, we too are transformed so as to become superior to corruption and sin. It is true, as blessed Paul says: ‘Just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly,’ that is, of Christ. Christ is understood as a heavenly man not because He brought His flesh down to us from above and from heaven, but because the Word, being God, came down from heaven and entered into our likeness—that is, He underwent birth according to the flesh from a woman—yet remained what He was: from above and from heaven, and above all things as God, even with flesh. So the divine John says of Him somewhere: ‘The One who comes from above is above all.’ He remained Lord of all even when, according to the dispensation, He came to be in the form of a servant. For this reason the mystery of Christ is truly marvelous. Indeed, God the Father said somewhere to the Jews through one of the prophets: ‘Look, you despisers, and vanish; marvel, because I am doing a work in your days, a work you will not believe even if someone tells it to you in detail.’ The mystery of Christ is in danger of being disbelieved because the wonder is so great. God was in humanity, and the One above all creation was in our condition; the Invisible was visible according to the flesh; the One from heaven and from above was in the form of those made from earth; the intangible could be touched; the One free by His own nature was in the form of a servant; the One who blesses creation became subject to a curse; All-Righteousness was numbered among the lawless; and Life came under the appearance of death. For the body that tasted death belonged not to someone else, but to the One who is Son by nature. Do you find anything in these statements to criticize as wrong or improperly said by us?
B. Not at all.
A. Then consider this as well.
B. What do you mean?
A. Christ said somewhere to those who wished to deny the resurrection of the dead: ‘Have you not read that the One who made man in the beginning made them male and female?’ And the divine Paul writes, ‘Marriage is honorable among all, and the marriage bed undefiled.’ Why, then, when the Only-Begotten Word of God chose to enter into likeness with us, did He not allow the ordinary laws of human nature to govern the formation and birth of His own flesh? He did not choose to receive it from the marriage bed and wedlock, but from an honorable and unwedded Virgin who conceived by the Spirit when the power of God overshadowed her, as it is written. Since God did not dishonor marriage but rather honored it with blessing, why did the Word, being God, make a Virgin who conceived by the Spirit the mother of His own flesh?
B. I cannot say.
A. Yet how could the reason not be clear to everyone who considers this? The Son came, as I said—or rather, became man—in order first to transform our condition in Himself into a holy, admirable, and truly marvelous birth and life. He Himself was the first to be born of the Holy Spirit, I mean according to the flesh, so that grace might pass through Him as along a road and reach us as well. Then, having our spiritual rebirth not ‘from blood, nor from the will of the flesh, nor from the will of man, but from God’ through the Spirit, and receiving a spiritual conformity to the One who is Son by nature and in truth, we may call God Father. In this way we may remain incorruptible, no longer having the first man, Adam, as our father, in whom we became corrupt. Thus Christ said in one place, ‘Call no one on earth your father, for one is your Father, who is in heaven.’ And elsewhere, because He descended into our condition precisely so that He might bring us to His own dignity, which is proper to God, He says: ‘I am going to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.’ The One in heaven is His Father by nature and our God. But because the One who is Son by nature and in truth became like us, He says that He has Him as His God, in the manner appropriate to His self-emptying; and He has also given His own Father to us. For it is written: ‘As many as received Him, He gave them authority to become children of God, to those who believe in His name.’ But if through ignorance we deny that the Word from God the Father—the One who has preeminence in all things, as the most wise Paul says—came to be born in the same manner as we are, then after whose form shall we be shaped when we are called those born of God through the Spirit? Whom shall we have as the firstfruits of this reality, or who at all will convey this dignity to us?
B. I suppose they themselves would say: the Word who became man.
A. But how can this be true unless He Himself became flesh—that is, became man—making the human body His own through an unbreakable union, so that it is understood to be His and not someone else’s? In this way He will also send the grace of adoption to us, and we too will be born of the Spirit, since human nature first received this in Him. The divine Paul seems to me to have had something like this in mind when he said very rightly: ‘Just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.’ He also says, ‘The first man was from the earth, earthly; the second man is from heaven. As is the earthly man, so also are those who are earthly; and as is the heavenly One, so also are those who are heavenly.’ We are earthly because from the earthly Adam there came upon us the curse of corruption, through which the law of sin also entered, the law that is in the members of our flesh. But we have become heavenly by receiving this in Christ. For though He is God by nature, from God, and from above, He came down into our condition in an extraordinary and strange manner, being born according to the flesh from the Spirit, so that we too, in conformity with Him, might remain holy and incorruptible. Grace thus descends to us from Him as from a second beginning and root.
B. You have spoken excellently.
A. And how do they say that He was made like His brothers—that is, us—in all things? Who could the One who entered into this likeness possibly be unless He were by nature other than we are and not originally in our condition? Whatever is made like something else must certainly be different from it beforehand: not already like it, but rather of another form or nature. The Only-Begotten, then, being unlike us by nature, is said to have been made like us when He became as we are—that is, man. This could happen rightly and in no other way than through a birth like ours, although in His case it was wondrous, for the One who became incarnate was God. And let it be confessed that the body united to Him was endowed with a rational soul. The Word, being God, did not neglect what is higher in us—the soul—and take thought only for the earthly body. Rather, He wisely provided for soul and body together.
B. I agree. You understand it rightly.
A. So if our opponents say that the holy Virgin must by no means be called Mother of God but rather Mother of Christ, they openly blaspheme and drive Christ away from truly being God and Son. For if they believe that He is truly God, since the Only-Begotten became as we are, why do they recoil from calling the woman who bore Him according to the flesh the Mother of God?
B. Yes, they say. The name ‘Christ’ seems to belong exclusively to the one born from a woman and from the seed of David, because he was anointed with the Holy Spirit. The Word from God, insofar as His own nature is concerned, would have no need at all of such grace, since He is holy by nature. Does not the name ‘Christ’ imply that an anointing has taken place?
A. You are right that one is called ‘Christ’ because of being anointed, just as one is called an apostle because of being sent and an angel because of bearing a message. Such names signify certain actions or realities; they do not by themselves designate individual hypostases or recognized persons. The prophets too were called ‘christs,’ as the Psalms sing: ‘Do not touch My christs, and do no evil among My prophets.’ And the prophet Habakkuk said, ‘You went out for the salvation of Your people, to save Your christs.’ But tell me this: do they not themselves say that there is one Christ and Son, namely the Only-Begotten Word of God, the Lord who became man and was incarnate?
B. Perhaps they would say so. Yet they do not want the name ‘Christ’ to belong primarily to the Word born from God the Father, because as God He was not anointed according to His own nature. They add this argument as well: ‘Christ,’ they say, is not one of the names we would use equally of the Father Himself or of the Holy Spirit.
A. The argument is not yet entirely clear. Explain it, then; you will do well.
B. Listen, then. In the God-inspired Scriptures we can see that the Son is called by many different names. He is called God, Lord, Light, Life, King, Lord of hosts, Holy, and Almighty. Yet if someone wished to use these same names of the Father or of the Holy Spirit, he would not say anything unfitting. For since there is one nature, the excellence of the divine dignities is likewise one. Therefore, they say, if ‘Christ’ is truly a name proper to the Only-Begotten, let it apply without distinction, like the others, to the Father Himself and to the Holy Spirit. But since it is utterly unreasonable to apply this name to the Father and the Holy Spirit, it must not properly belong to the Only-Begotten Himself either. Rather, it belongs truly to the one from the seed of David, of whom it can be said without objection that he was anointed with the Spirit.
A. We ourselves also say that the names expressing the divine dignities are common to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and we are accustomed to crown with equal glories the Father who begets, the Son begotten from Him, and the Holy Spirit. Yet, my good friends, I would say that the name ‘Christ,’ and the reality itself—that is, the anointing—came to the Only-Begotten together with the conditions of His self-emptying, giving those who hear it a clear indication that He became man. It signifies very well that He was anointed insofar as He appeared as man. If we were not considering the very mystery of His dispensation in the flesh, but were looking at the Only-Begotten Word of God apart from the conditions of self-emptying, then it would indeed be altogether inappropriate to call Him ‘Christ’ when He had not been anointed. But since the divine and most holy Scripture says that He became flesh, anointing now also belongs to Him, because it took place in connection with His becoming flesh, which is His own. Thus the all-wise Paul writes: ‘Both the One who sanctifies and those who are sanctified are all from one. For this reason He is not ashamed to call them brothers, saying: I will proclaim Your name to My brothers.’ He was sanctified together with us when He became as we are. And that the One anointed was truly the Son, insofar as He became flesh—or rather, perfect man—is confirmed by the divine David, who says to Him: ‘Your throne, O God, is forever and ever. A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom. You loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; therefore God, Your God, anointed You with the oil of gladness beyond Your companions.’ Notice, then, that after calling Him God and giving Him an eternal throne, David says that He was anointed by God—clearly, by the Father—with an exceptional anointing beyond those who share in Him, that is, us. For although the Word became man while remaining God, even so He lacked none of the goods proper to His own nature. He is complete in Himself and ‘full of grace and truth,’ according to John. He possesses perfectly everything that is proper to God, while ‘from His fullness we have all received,’ as it is written. Therefore, while making His own the measures of His humanity and everything that belongs to it, He is called Christ, even though according to the nature of the Godhead—that is, insofar as He is understood as God—He is not conceived as needing anointing. Otherwise tell me: how else could He be understood as Christ, Son, and Lord if the Only-Begotten refused the anointing and would not accept the conditions of self-emptying?
B. They take a path different from ours and interpret the mystery of godliness without understanding. They say that God the Word assumed a perfect man from the seed of Abraham and David, in accordance with the Scriptures—a man who by nature was exactly what those from whose seed he came were, perfect in human nature and consisting of a rational soul and human flesh. This man, they say, was by nature like us, formed by the power of the Holy Spirit in the Virgin’s womb, ‘born of a woman, born under the Law,’ so that he might redeem us all from slavery to the Law and receive the adoption appointed long beforehand. God the Word joined this man to Himself in a new kind of conjunction, caused him to experience death according to the law of human beings, raised him from the dead, took him up into heaven, and seated him at the right hand of God. From there, being above every rule, authority, power, dominion, and every name that is named not only in this age but also in the age to come, he receives worship from all creation because he has an inseparable conjunction with the divine nature. All creation, they say, offers him worship with reference to God and with God in mind. ‘We do not speak of two sons or two lords. God the Word, the Only-Begotten Son of the Father, is Son according to essence; and because this man is joined to Him and participates in Him, he shares in the title and honor of Son. Likewise, God the Word is Lord according to essence, and the man joined to Him shares in this honor. For this reason we speak neither of two sons nor of two lords. Since the One who is Lord and Son according to essence is clearly such by nature, the man assumed for our salvation, having an inseparable conjunction with Him, is carried up together with Him into the name and honor of Son and Lord.’